By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
Discussion in 'Geostrategic Issues' started by gf0012-aust, Jan 14, 2017.
Thread for broader US Gov issues
Bill Gertz is part of a mil strategy discussion group I'm in. He was an editor for the Wash Post and has now started up the Washington Beacon with some others.
This one is an op-ed from one of their contributors
Lawmakers Vote to Allow Mattis to Lead Pentagon
I think that Mattis will be a good choice as SecDef. I've been reading a bit about him and he is a remarkable man with a great following amongst the Marines, not just because he is a marine but because he's a marines marine, tells it like it is and was always concerned about his marines. He was known as the Monk in the Corp; never married either and like the article said very widely read.
Talk of New candidate for SecNav
Talk of New candidate for SecNav
Talk of Trump picking a Financier as Forbes
Two sons from USNS, on board at USNA and Institute
Mattis no doubt is well qualified for the job. The problem is whether he'll be in sync with the new President and the new Secretary of State. Trump has announced he's doing away with the Iranian nuke deal and has indicated that he might make changes to the One China policy. The world's already an unstable place, the last thing we need is more trouble in the Middle East and trouble with China.
U.S., Indian Officials Set to Discuss Aircraft Carrier Design
although of relevance to the Ind Navy, am posting here as source is driven by US involvement
When asked about protections for LBGTQ troops by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand:
"Frankly, senator, I've never cared much about two consenting adults and who they go to bed with, I'm concerned with their lethality."
Yep, and that's the way it should be. Quite a polite version of how he would normally phrase it as well
IMO the incoming American President has surrounded himself with a very capable Cabinet. again, IMO, I don't think US policy can be much worse than the disjointed, hapless policy of the past 8 years that has created a vacuum in multiple strategic areas of the world. Experienced leaders like Mattis and Flynn will provide solid direction vs the inexperienced (mainly) politically motivated inexperienced appointees of the past administration.
The US press continues to sharpshoot every move vigorously as the are still smarting from the loss in November. Perhaps before they, and everyone else for that matter, condemn the President Elect's actions they should see what actually takes place first.
the litmus begins when he starts the real job, for a number of reasons, he needs to succeed otherwise he will be seen as the architect of the decline of the US and the corruption of elements of accountability etc....
I seriously have misgivings about his treatment of the INT community - their job is to protect the US, their job is not to protect the institution of the presidency, or even to protect the president. His behaviour towards them just to protect the narrative about him getting elected has been appalling
I wish someone would chuck his damn phone in potomac.
You are a very positive soul. Most of his cabinet position look more like he's putting an alcoholic in charge of the bar. I don't find very much coherent or comforting coming from the President Elect, especially regarding strategic issues. Unfortunately I am reminded of the saying 'A fish rots from the head'.
I more or less share yours and GF''s concerns about Trump. Hillary would have been Obama 2.0 and that would been as the Donald likes to say, a disaster. I guess we will find out pretty soon how this is going to play out. I guess a sell off on Wall Street will be our first clue.
If he does 50% of what he promised, expect 2007-9 revisited. It will take 3, 4 years for this to occur, I suspect. Example: 4-5% growth rate will produce massive inflation once the labor market is brought to full employment, once that occurs, high rates coupled with debt, and you have a real problem. Just my .02.
Mattis has described Iran as the most ''destabilising force in the Middle East'' - whether he really means what he says or because it's politically correct to say this is the question. Sure, the Iranians are no angels [they've long meddled in Afghanistan, Lebbanon and Iraq but so have others] but the same applies to all the players in the region, including the U.S. All implement policies and undertake actions in line with their respective national interests; regardless if it's detrimental to others. Viewed objectively it's Saudi that is the most ''destabilising'' - instead of helping defeat IS Saudi got involved in Yemen, exports its Wahhabi ideology [adopted by IS] and has been less than helpful in clamping down on funding from private individuals and groups to IS.
The Iranians at least were on the ground in Iraq way before others to help stem the IS tide and have [way before September 11th] cooperated with the U.S. in Afghanistan in efforts to defeat the Talibs. American/U.S. relations will play a big part in determining how stable the region will be in the coming years and countries like Saudi, Qatar, the U.A.E. and Israel will welcome any further strains in the U.S/Iran relationship. Hardliners in Iran who are already accusing the leadership of selling out to the Americans will welcome new new U.S. administration taking harder line on Iran.
Not enough. He has bots (presumably set up for him, not by him) generating huge numbers of approving tweets, & apparently, staff members reacting to them. There are Twitter accounts which do nothing but re-tweet his tweets, or re-tweet the re-tweets, often with added approving comments - & his account re-tweets some of those re-tweets, even when he's obviously doing something else, such as giving a speech.
It's very clumsily done. Some of them are traceable to him. Batches of them were created with Trump corporate logos. Many are one-offs, presumably to create an illusion of larger numbers. There appears to be software which is registering Twitter accounts, re-tweeting his tweets, then closing those accounts, in bulk.
The Twitter address of a woman in the UK named Ivanka was accidentally included in a re-tweet by an apparently dummy account (name of a person with no other online presence found, despite supposedly being a US doctor, no previous tweets, etc.). She's been bombarded with traffic since. Attempts to contact the re-tweeter elicited a response: the account was deleted.
Yet another reason to worry about what Trump's going to do. A big operation to boost him, apparently meant to be surreptitious, but done very crudely & clumsily so it's bloody obvious what it is..
Mr Trump continues to exhibit a playful regard for the truth, on this occasion with respect to how much smaller the crowd was at his inauguration than Mr Obama. It did bring the lovely phrase "Alternate Facts" into the public domain. Sadly this may be the phrase that characterises his administration, which is disturbing. While you can get away with telling porkers to your believers, it doesn't cut it so well in the real world with a critical audience. How he is going to establish any trust with the electorate when he seemingly can't tell the truth about anything, even as simple as crowd numbers.
Perhaps there is a bigger concern, that the administration may be making significant decisions based on its "Alternate Facts", which is potentially terrifying.
There is also a strong authoritarian streak in "Alternate Facts" alone, ie you will believe what we tell you. Doesn't take much to see him becoming a despot.
No idea why they had to comment on it anyway, he seems to thing it's some sort of ratings war or something.
You don't need to be Einstein to work out the crowds would be smaller when this inauguration would only be a foot note in history compared to Obama being the 1st Black President that was all ways in his favour.
The fact is US politics is so polarized that neither side gives a rat's a$$ about establishing trust with the other side's share of the electorate. As for truth, truth from pollies is an oxymoron.
Trump plan tax 20% Mexico goods which ultimately is pay by US consumers
Seem like trade war is coming